Timothy+v.+Cedar+Rapids+Community+School+Dist

(By Jody Carter) TIMOTHY H. and Brenda H., Individually and as Guardians and Next Friends of Kratisha H., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Grant Wood Area Education Agency 10, and the Iowa Department of Education, Defendants-Appellants. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted April 19, 1999. Filed May 21, 1999. Rehearing and Rehearing Denied July 20, 1999. Background

Kratisha is a high school, special education with disabilities that require the need of special transportation services. The student’s parents want the school district to fund transportation to another school, although, they agree that her neighborhood school is sufficient in addressing her needs. The school district refused to offer transportation on the grounds that it would be a financial burden to the district. Her parents appealed to the Iowa Department of Education and the administrative law judge sided with the school district. Thus, her parents filed an appeal to the district court which favored the plaintiffs. Therefore, the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit reviewed the case.

Decision

The United States Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school district for the following reasons: parents failed to prove that Kratisha was denied benefits affordable by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the school program did not discriminate against their child, and that parents are only refusing to comply with the district’s rule that parents provide transportation to schools outside of assigned areas. Plus, the court asserted that the district did produce evidence that the special transportation services would cause an undue and substantial burden on the district as per the Section 504. Thus, precedence was set that schools must abide by the Section 504 act unless they can prove that accommodations rendered will cause a financial burden on the district.

Impact on Education

The outcome of this case impacts educational professionals because it illustrates the seriousness of failure to accommodate a child with disabilities as well as provides a ground work for disputes against the financial burden of special education. Teachers and administrators must be aware of the needs of each child and the guidelines required by the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. If they decide to reject any accommodation, then these officials must be prepared to prove an undue financial burden. Also, teachers and administrators must make sure that in declining an accommodation for a child, there must be no discrimination based on disability and that all programs are available to everyone despite any the impairments of students.

Applicable Quiz Question

True or False School districts must meet all accommodations for students with disabilities regardless if the financial burden on the school is excessive.

Kevin Johns Mged 3030 February 18th 2011

**TIMOTHY H. and Brenda H., Individually and as Guardians and Next Friends of Kratisha H., Plaintiffs-Appellees,** United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted April 19, 1999. Filed May 21, 1999. Rehearing and Rehearing Denied July 20, 1999.
 * v.**
 * CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Grant Wood Area Education Agency 10, and the Iowa Department of Education, Defendants-Appellants.**

Background

The parents of Kratisha, a student with cerebral palsy, brought action against John F. Kennedy High, because they denied a specialized transpiration system for her. The school had previously accepted her and warned the parents that they would have to provide transportation. Her parents transported her for the 1995-1996 school year, after this the parents asked for specialized transportation and were denied. The filed action against the school, and won the case, however the court of appeals reopened the case, because the school felt that the funding needed to provide this was too great.

Decision

The court of appeals reversed the case and became in favor of the school district, for the reasoning that Kratisha, lived in bounds of another school that could provide this transportation for her, and that the parents had personal preference towards the other school, and that the 504 Rehabilitation act does not protect against personal preference. The act was created for special needs students whose school district could not provide the education they needed, nor the transportation and since her district did the court deiced in favor of the district and reversed the decision of the district court.

Impact on Education

This shows that the school has the right to deny special needs children when it is unreasonable for them to attend that district. Yes, we should provide equal education; however, if the child can get equal education in their district then that child should stay within their district. Personal preference does not decide where the child goes to school, unless the parent wants to provide total transportation to that school.

Quiz Question:

T or F

___ The 504 rehabilitation act is in favor of personal preference for special needs children and will protect them and provide total transportation via the school district.

Ashley Thornton Timothy v. Cedar Rapids Community School District United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit Submitted April 19, 1999 Filed May 21, 1999 ** Background: ** Kratisha Timothy, a special education high school student, represented by her parents, filed suit against the Cedar Rapids Community School District citing a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Timothys wished their daughter to attend a school outside of her school district, even after admitting that the school she would normally attend offered her a “free appropriate public education.” The school she wanted to attend allowed out-of-district students to attend, stipulating only that parents must provide transportation to and from school for the student. When the district refused to provide special transportation to Kratisha (at a proposed cost of $24,000), her parents argued she was being discriminated against. ** Decision/Rationale: ** Though the lower court found that the school district was, indeed, discriminating against her, and would have to spend the $24,000 to provide transportation to and from the preferred school, the school district appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals reviewed the case. Section 504 protects students from discrimination based on special needs, but it further states that “Accommodations are not reasonable if they impose `undue financial and administrative burdens' or if they require a `fundamental alteration in the nature of [the] program.' The Court of Appeals held that since the school in the student’s district was an acceptable institution, to force the other school district to spend $24,000 just to bus one student to school would be considered an ‘undue financial burden.’ ** Impact on Teaching: ** Teachers must be fluent in the language of special education law. Though the justices for this case ruled in favor of the school system, there are circumstances under which students will have to be accommodated. It is important for educators to be knowledgeable of all the special needs their students have, and to meet those needs as outlined in the various binding documents, or otherwise face lawsuits and possible punishment. ** Question: ** What section of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects disabled students from discrimination? a. 500 b. 405

c. 504 d. 505